Australasian Journal of

Educational Technology
2010, 26(1), 105-122

Students as Web 2.0 authors: Implications for

assessment design and conduct
Kathleen Gray, Celia Thompson
The University of Melbourne
Judithe Sheard, Rosemary Clerehan
Monash University
Margaret Hamilton
RMIT University

Students now have at their disposal a range of Web 2.0 authoring forms such as audio
and video podcasting, blogging, social bookmarking, social networking, virtual world
activities and wiki writing. Many university educators are interested in enabling
students to demonstrate their learning by creating content in these forms. However,
the design and conduct of assessment for such student-created content is not
straightforward. Based upon a review of current literature and examples in the public
domain, this paper identifies key challenges for academic assessment that arise from
students’ use of Web 2.0 authoring forms. We describe and analyse selected cases
where academics have set assessable student Web 2.0 activities in a range of fields of
study, noting especially the inter-relationship of learning objectives, assessment tasks
and marking criteria. We make recommendations for practice, research and
understanding to strengthen educational quality and academic integrity in the use of
Web 2.0 authoring forms for assessable student learning.

Assessment challenges of student Web 2.0 authoring

University students and staff now have at their disposal a wide range of forms and
tools for Web 2.0 authoring, including audio and video podcasting, blogging, social
bookmarking, social networking, virtual world activities and wiki writing.
Furthermore, there is a growing range of Web 2.0 authoring tools which are designed
specifically to suit educational users – both freestanding services such as CiteULike,
Edublogs, Serious Games and TeacherTube, and tools incorporated within newer versions
of learning management systems such as Blackboard and Moodle. What is more, neither
staff nor students need to rely any longer on the online learning infrastructure
provided by their educational institutions to give them access to their choice of
purpose designed or popular tools. So staff and students together, and students
independent of staff, are freer than ever before to use these new Web authoring forms
as they choose, to support learning and teaching, inside and outside of academic
policies and protocols.

Furthermore, academics are being encouraged to implement Web 2.0 authoring in

student learning activities (e.g. Alexander, 2006; Dalsgaard, 2006; Franklin & van
Harmelen, 2007; Richardson, 2006). Student Web 2.0 authoring is thought to improve
106 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2010, 26(1)

learning in a variety of ways, for example to engage and empower students, to

increase peer learning and creative expression, to develop literacy and communication
skills, and to inculcate lifelong learning (e.g. Barnes & Tynan, 2007; Berlanga, Sloep,
Brouns, Van Rosmalen, Bitter-Rijpkema & Koper, 2007; Brown & Adler, 2008; Godwin,
2007; Lamb & McLaughlin, 2007; Renner, 2006). Web 2.0 authoring knowledge and
skills may be increasingly important to students after graduation too, given that
serious uses of Web 2.0 authoring are proliferating in the civic, business, professional
and research settings where students may be destined (e.g. ACLS, 2006; Boulos,
Maramba & Wheeler, 2006; Bughin, 2008; Burgess, Foth & Klaebe, 2006).

Although including students’ use of Web 2.0 authoring in academic learning seems to
have educational merit, student Web 2.0 authoring is substantially different from
traditional forms of assessable student work. The interactivity and social interaction
that it encourages cannot be assigned or marked to full effect by using assessment
strategies that academics may have used previously, for written reports, essays,
examinations or class presentations, for example. In this respect, Web 2.0 activities are
different even from earlier forms of online learning activities such as uploading files
for assessment or contributing to discussion boards. Furthermore Web 2.0 activities
extend the nature not only of individual student work but also of group work. “So the
Web 2.0 tension to be managed is one of deciding how to balance the private and the
social within the experience of learning.... But it is also a matter of protecting the
realistic demands of assessment” (Crook, Fisher, Graber, Harrison, Lewin, Logan et al.,
2008, p. 39). This paper therefore seeks to identify and begin to address a critical issue
that is currently impeding higher educational innovation with student Web 2.0
authoring, namely the relevant conventions and guidelines for designing and
conducting assessment are still underdeveloped.

Improving the quality of assessment activities is a perennial priority for universities

(for example, Chalmers, 2007, pp. 89-92). Assessment is said to drive learning in
particular ways; as Kirkwood and Price (2008, p. 5) say about online learning,
“Assessment influences not only what parts of a course get studied, but also how those
parts are studied [….] Appropriately designed assessment that exploits the potential of
ICT can change students’ approaches to learning”. It follows that non-purposeful
assessment or inappropriately designed and conducted assessment could have a
deleterious effect on student learning and engagement with Web 2.0, and on its appeal
and reputation among teaching staff. Setting superficial tasks, requiring ephemeral
forms of work for educational credit, accepting work that is without academic rigour
or claiming exaggerated learning outcomes from such work, for example, could
backfire on those who hope to tap the educational potential of Web 2.0 authoring.

The heightened speed, ubiquity and multiplicity of student content creation that may
be enabled by Web 2.0 forms do not automatically create the conditions of
transparency and accountability needed to assure good practice in the assessment of
student work. The promise of Web 2.0 is that “Learning progress and achievements
become visible not only in tests but rather in the learning process documented in
portfolios (for example in wikis or weblogs), learning products and social interactions”
(Ehlers, 2009, p. 304). However, many educators concede that student Web 2.0
authoring in higher education raises significant challenges for assessment, posing a
barrier to further adoption. Examples include Anderson (2007, pp. 54-56); Dron (2006);
Elliott (2007); Horizon Report (2008, p. 5); Nillson, Ekloff, and Ottosson (2005); Roberts
(2007); Sankey and Huijser (2009); and Selwyn (2007, p. 7).
Gray, Thompson, Sheard, Clerehan and Hamilton 107

Pointers to good practice in assessing student Web 2.0 authoring may be inferred from
existing general guides to assessment (such as James, McInnis & Devlin, 2002; REAP,
2007) and to assessing group learning (such as Isaacs, 2002; Race, 2001), but how to
apply them appropriately to the assessment of student Web 2.0 authoring is not
always obvious for technical, logistical or pedagogical reasons. The principles of
constructive alignment (Biggs, 2003a), for instance, which have been embedded in
many higher educational programs, focus on desired levels of understanding and their
enactment in target activities with intended learning outcomes. Assessment tasks are
worded so that it can be seen to what extent performance meets pre-determined
objectives. Responsive assessment of students’ Web 2.0 activities by its nature,
however, may confound the philosophy underlying this kind of linear approach. It
may be that deep engagement in tasks, whether expressed in visual, verbal or
embodied language in the fluid and emergent environments of Web 2.0 could fly
under – and beyond – the radar of such a system. Even specialised guides that have
been developed to support online assessment or e-assessment (e.g. Crisp, 2007; JISC,
2007) may recognise some of the in-principle challenges, but do not give details of how
to resolve these in practice in the assessment of student Web 2.0 authoring. As Varvel
(2005, p. 4) reminds us, when assessment is online, students may bring books, notes
and “the entire Internet, along with friends or even paid helpers. All online
assessments essentially become open book in nature. But life itself is open book.”

There are also underlying reasons why the assessment of student Web 2.0 authoring is
not straightforward. Academics may encounter philosophical arguments against
assessing student Web 2.0 authoring, on the grounds that to control or constrain its
novel aspects may be contrary to the spirit of Internet use or of adult learning (e.g.
Batson, 2007; Hemmi, Bayne & Land, 2009). Technical or operational suggestions for
improving efficiency in the assessment of student Web 2.0 authoring tend to be put
forward without reference to any academic quality framework (e.g. Clark, Sampson,
Weinberger & Erkens, 2007; Downes, 2007). A surprising proportion of students may
not be familiar with Web 2.0 authoring forms or tools, or may not like using them (e.g.
Kennedy, Dalgarno, Gray, Judd, Waycott, Bennett et al., 2007). The scholarly and
scientific citation and referencing conventions that student assignments are expected
to use are still ‘playing catch-up’ with regard to many forms of Web 2.0 authoring
(Gray, Thompson, Clerehan, Sheard & Hamilton, 2008). Finally, most official
university assessment policies and procedures do not offer guidance on issues of
identification, ownership, safety, privacy and recording-keeping of student Web 2.0
work produced for assessment.

The next section of this paper seeks to advance understanding of current practice by
bringing together for review and analysis a range of cases in the public domain, where
academics have set assessable student Web 2.0 authoring work.

Approaches to assessment of student Web 2.0 authoring

Method
Our investigation involved, first, the selection of accounts (peer reviewed where
possible) of assessing student Web 2.0 authoring in higher education and second,
dissection of their approaches to assessment, in order to contextualise the apparent
challenges just described and as groundwork for further research based on primary
data collection. The authors systematically searched recent educational conference
108 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2010, 26(1)

proceedings, journal articles and academic websites in the public domain for accounts
of such uses of each Web 2.0 authoring form, using keywords such as “assignment”,
“grade”, “marking” and” rubric”. In a few of the Web 2.0 authoring forms where there
were many examples to choose from, the authors selected representative cases, based
on currency, level of detail, diversity of academic disciplines, variety of software tools
and other distinctive features.
We developed a template to describe as concisely and objectively as possible the
context, the purpose, the task and the marking system in each case. Then, to the extent
made possible by the source document, we analysed the cases, first separately and
then as a set, in terms of how they addressed basic criteria for good assessment
practice. As a way to relate Web 2.0 authoring assessment in these cases to
fundamentals of good assessment practice in higher education generally, we framed
this analysis by using criteria from James, McInnis and Devlin (2002). These criteria
were selected for our purposes because they are part of a comprehensive and much
cited guide endorsed by the Australia Universities Teaching Committee, which is
written in a style accessible to educators who might be innovating with student Web
2.0 authoring, while not necessarily being expert in assessment design. We extended
these criteria to add the dimension of what might constitute good practice in using
Web 2.0 authoring for assessment, that is, ensuring a fit between the affordances of the
tool on one hand, and the task and its marking on the other. Table 1 summarises the
selected case descriptions; the analytical criteria are used to organise the findings and
discussion which follow.

Table 1: Selected cases of assessment of student Web 2.0 authoring in higher education
(Sources in Appendix)

Case and Learning outcomes Tasks required Grading and mark-

context intended by educators of students ing information
A1 To develop critical aware- Create a three-minute podcast to Not specified.
Audio ness of e-media to help teach a grammar point, selecting a
Podcasting select and evaluate appro- non-fiction text that models its use,
(English priate teaching resources; and post on Website;
language To create and share origi- Listen to a number of these
teacher nal teaching materials; podcasts and write peer reviews;
training, To develop critical insight Write a self-reflection on
level not and greater self aware- professional learning, setting three
known) ness, to help in future specific goals for professional
lesson planning and development.
teaching.
A2 To develop digital and Create a five-minute podcast based Students received
Audio social competencies; on selecting and reading a short written feedback
Podcasting To use tools for passage of the novel under study; and grades on both
(Modern performing and Create another five-minute podcast podcasts;
literature, discussing written discussion of why you chose it, Some writing
under- material; what details were important, assignments were
graduate) To learn that thinking themes and issues raised, and how marked as in-class
about texts is a passage related to rest of novel; exams.
collaborative process that Listen to selected podcasts by other
can happen in dialogue. students to prepare for in-class
discussions;
Evaluate one other student’s
podcast content as part of writing
assignments.
Gray, Thompson, Sheard, Clerehan and Hamilton 109

Case and Learning outcomes Tasks required Grading and mark-

context intended by educators of students ing information
B1 To reflect on course Keep a reflective journal with Based on:
Blogging concepts; To apply them entries at least twice a week over frequency of
(Profess- to the environment one semester. postings; clarity in
ional outside the classroom; writing;
communic- To assess communication thoughtfulness,
ation for performance based on fre- engagement and
pharmacists, quency of postings, clarity relevance;
level not of writing, thoughtful- Conducted three
known) ness, engagement and times, at four week
relevance. intervals.
B2 To enhance learning, Maintain weekly online learning Worth 40% of total
Blogging increase student logs over the semester in which to grade; Assessed at
(Humanities, involvement in and describe prior learning, articles the end of semester
languages responsibility for their read and reflections; Based on: number
and social learning. Comment on log postings of other of posts, degree of
sciences, course participants. research, evidence
level not of consulting other
known) students' blogs.
B3 To enhance learning, Maintain weekly online learning Worth 24% of final
Blogging increase student logs over the semester in which to grade.
(Information involvement in and describe prior learning, articles
systems, responsibility for their read and reflections;
under- learning. Comment on log postings of other
graduate) course participants.
SB1 To be able to create a set Establish a bookmarking account; Mark for
Social Book- of bookmarks for Web Create and share a set of individual work;
marking access; bookmarks relevant to this part of 5 blog posts over a
(Information To be able to share your the course; semester, each
science and bookmarks with anyone Create a taxonomy of your tags worth 20 points;
technology, on the Internet. and compare with other students; Post titled with
level not In a blog, comment on why and name and the
known) how the selected and tagged assignment
Websites were chosen; number - 5 points;
Review and comment on blog Use of prescribed
posts of other students. and free tags - 5
points;
Review of two sites
bookmarked - 10
points.
SB2 To learn about Internet Capture, tag and annotate over the One of 5 Web 2.0
Social Book- resources and activities semester a minimum of 40 links to assignments
marking that schools can integrate, items such as lesson plans and during the
(Educational including digital library teaching resources; semester.
technology, resources, Web 2.0 Share them with the class;
post- applications and Add other class members to your
graduate) collaborative Internet personal del.icio.us user network.
projects.
SB3 To describe and identify Create a del.icio.us account; Two of 37
Social Book- online collaboration tools, Find 10 educational sites; progressive
marking asynchronous Add a link to your del.icio.us assignments worth
(Educational communication tools and account to your wiki; a total of 75% of
Internet how they are used in Add a response to the class wiki final grade.
literacy, classrooms. discussion of “Would you advise
post- your students to create a del.icio.us
graduate) account?”
110 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2010, 26(1)

Case and Learning outcomes Tasks required Grading and mark-

context intended by educators of students ing information
SN1 To engage with a social Each week for 6 weeks: Assessed on the
Social networking site and Experience the social networking degree to which
Networking reflect on that site; entries demonstr-
(Issues in engagement critically; Read a relevant paper; ate critical engage-
electronic To research social Write a reflections in a blog; ment with both the
media, networking. Write a summary; use academic resources read in
under- style (as for an essay); properly the course of resea-
graduate) reference any external material rch and with the
with citations in text and listings in social networking
a bibliography. site itself
SN2 To learn about the use of Organise a seminar on The Future Grade based on
Social the Internet for of Social Networking; oral presentation
Networking commercial, educational, Present the technology in enough and (two-thirds of
(Business on and scientific objectives; depth to give a sense of what is the grade) on Web
the Internet, To have a sense of what is possible; project;
under- possible with each Lead student discussion on the Formative
graduate) technology, what import and potential of the assessment of
potential pitfalls exist technology; intermediate
along the way, and where Produce a written Web product of project
things are likely to go in your design on the topic of social assignments.
the future. networking, including do
intermediate assignments that
contribute to the project.
VW1 To introduce the Create and customise a public Staff from several
Virtual philosophical and avatar for the virtual world and universities and
World psychological problems write a reflective piece about the disciplines share
(Behavioural and understandings of process with reference to theories teaching and
studies, digital selfhood; of identity; assessment;
under- To prepare for the Collaborate and complete a set task Final mark in the
graduate) practise of digital as part of a virtual world subject composed
selfhood. workgroup; of:
Create an online presence and Avatar task: 20%
presentation in the virtual world Group project: 5%
and / or elsewhere that will be an shared mark plus
extension of your professional 15% indiv. mark
identity as a university graduate; Regular particip-
Regularly participate in the subject ation: 20%
and interact with staff and Online presence:
students via the Blackboard site. (40% inferred).
VW2 To learn how to integrate Create a representation of yourself Students could
Virtual visual and verbal rhetoric in the virtual world: create an earn extra grades
World object, upload an image to use as a over and above
(Language texture on the object, write and their main subject
and cultural post a paper about your future assignments;
studies, plans on a Web page, and create a Marks based on
under- link to the Web page inside the innovative work
graduate) object in the virtual world; and on
Apply your knowledge of icono- “attendance”.
graphy and architectural styles on
campus by creating your own ideal
campus building in the virtual
world and write a piece arguing
why your building is the best;
Attend a social hour in world twice
a week.
Gray, Thompson, Sheard, Clerehan and Hamilton 111

Case and Learning outcomes Tasks required Grading and mark-

context intended by educators of students ing information
V1 To see the limitations ofAnswer generic questions such as Grading of
Vodcasting YouTube; “YouTube is...” and “YouTube participation and
(Media To embrace the culture ofworks by...” in video submissions; posts (9 video plus
studies, academic research. Post every assignment online; 9 written): 40%;
under- Respond to classmates through Grading on
graduate) posts and other videos; projects: 30%.
Choose a thesis topic relating to
YouTube and conduct research
using only the Web site;
In the second half of the syllabus
students as a group decide
whether they want to continue
taping the course or if they want to
have a more conventional class.
V2 To develop a detailed Work with your seminar group to One of three assig-
Vodcasting understanding of the create a vodcast based on the nments; worth 15%
(Human principles and practices seminar presentation of another of overall mark;
computer involved in the creation group; Assessment
interaction, and implementation of Edit down the original criteria: Timely
under- user centred interaction presentation so that it is no longer posting (hurdle
graduate) with multimedia products than 10 to 15 minutes; requirement);
and systems in business, Give the presentation a title and Capture of video
entertainment, education credits; and audio (5 mks);
and social environments. Insert graphics summarising the Editing, transitions
main points; and sequencing (5
Upload for other students use to marks);
study for the exam. Titles, credits and
summary graphics
(5 marks).
W1 To develop four Work in pairs to produce a wiki 25% of final grade
Wiki Writing capabilities / key entry for an existing open resource for individual
(New media performance indicators wiki on a topic set by the teacher; contributions as
technologies, for working in a Work in pairs to produce a wiki recorded in their
under- networked knowledge entry on new media uses (e.g. editing histories;
graduate) economy: blogs; video games); 75% of final mark
creativity; collaboration; Work in groups of four to produce given to pair/
criticality; a wiki entry relating to a particular group assessment
communication. issue (e.g. intellectual copyright; based on collab.
management and governance of abilities over the
the Internet). project lifecycle as
measured by the
number of contribs
made and the
quality of the
contribs made to
content devt.
W2 To select, organise and Use a wiki to produce a guide to Group marks.
Wiki Writing present information tail- online resources in a specific Grades based on
(Library and ored to the needs of subject area. specified learning
information specific users; To use objectives.
studies, standard bibliographic Marking criteria
post- conventions appropriat- include arrange-
graduate) ely; To critically evaluate ment, navigability,
group decision making user friendliness.
processes and products.
112 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2010, 26(1)

Case and Learning outcomes Tasks required Grading and mark-

context intended by educators of students ing information
W3 To develop Use a wiki to produce a group Shared assessment
Wiki Writing understanding of subject account of a social work practice of group task;
(Social work, content; theory, for other students in the Individual
under- To develop graduate course to use; assessment of
graduate) attributes (e.g. use of Individual students draw on this report.
online technologies; team resource to report on a case study
work; critical thinking). application of a particular theory.

This method of investigation did not purport to offer a full critique of any single case
of student Web 2.0 authoring assessment in higher education. Description and analysis
were limited to what the source publication contained, which could never tell the
whole story of a case. We recognise, for example, that in cases where precise
instructions as to how students should approach a task or how they would be graded
were not found within the published description, this does not mean that they were
not made explicit to students in practice; but it does reflect the limitations of the
literature in this field.

Findings and discussion

Our investigation found a paucity of cases which described assessment of student Web
2.0 authoring in higher education in any worthwhile detail, confirming that one barrier
to wider assessable use of Web 2.0 authoring may be the lack of examples for
academics to draw upon. Interestingly, some good examples were found in other
education sectors, for example, Carey’s (n.d.) social networking rubric from the middle
years of schooling.

We also found great variation in the number of cases available that described
assessable uses of different Web 2.0 authoring forms. Assessable uses of blogs and
wikis were relatively numerous, with a reasonable number of examples of virtual
worlds, while very few such cases of podcasting, social bookmarking or social
networking could be found. This suggests that bundling all Web 2.0 authoring forms
together, as some of the literature does, may be under emphasising the assessment
potential of some forms while over emphasising others.

Among cases of each Web 2.0 authoring form we found that there was quite narrow
use of the range of existing software tools, or sometimes tools were not specified. For
example, the social bookmarking cases we found mentioned only two of at least six
well-known tools. It does not appear that academics are choosing among the variety of
Web 2.0 authoring tools available – or the nuances that each one offers for supporting
interactivity and facilitating social interaction – to explore new approaches to
assessment. Alternatively it is possible that these explorations are unsuccessful and so
are not being written up for publication.

To date, Web 2.0 authoring seems to be offered chiefly for optional enrichment or for
formative, low stakes assessment. Only a small number of academics, spread across
institutions and disciplines, have reported recent experience with student Web 2.0
authoring for medium or high stakes assessment (that is, where tasks earn more than
token marks, prompt substantial feedback, can determine student progression and
may affect the standing of the course). This indicates that most Web 2.0 authoring in
higher education is not assessed and thus, to the extent that assessment drives
Gray, Thompson, Sheard, Clerehan and Hamilton 113

learning, there may be minimal opportunities for it to exert much influence on student
learning.

Discussion next turns to how principles of good practice in conventional assessment

were reflected in 17 cases. For ease of reference, the tools are identified by their initials
(e.g. “A” for audio podcasting, etc)

1. There are explicit learning outcomes, clear criteria and, where possible, statements of the
various levels of achievement.
Web 2.0 authoring forms were intended to achieve a variety of different types of
outcomes, including learning of discipline based curriculum material (e.g. B1, SN2,
VW2) and development of generic skills (e.g. A2, SB1, W1). Sometimes the objective
was more interim, to keep students interested in the former types of outcomes (e.g.
B2, B3). The language of some outcomes could not be described as measuring
achievement in a traditional sense (for instance, “embracing culture”, “practising
selfhood”, “sensing possibility”), rather it suggested a search for innovative ways to
describe the learning of new, technologically induced behaviours. Some cases
accommodated different levels of assessment, for example B2 had very detailed
criteria for five different grade levels.

2. There is a close match between the assessment tasks – in particular, the knowledge and skills
these tasks are capable of determining – and the intended learning outcomes.
In cases with discipline based learning objectives, for example where the tasks were
a means to the end of improving subject knowledge in pharmacy or social work,
tasks were designed with varying degrees of sophistication – in one case, simply
keeping a diary of readings, in others providing summaries or interpretations for
other learners (e.g. B1, V2). In other cases, where the aim of learning about the Web
2.0 authoring form was a recognised part of building subject knowledge per se, e.g.
educational technology and information science, some tasks were performative or
skill oriented, i.e. cases where the aim was to learn how to use the Web 2.0
authoring form, and the task was effectively step by step training in using the form
(e.g. SB3). There were also a few cases where there was more interplay between
Web 2.0 authoring knowledge and skills and the emergence of new subject
knowledge in the field, e.g. commerce and journalism; here the tasks were very
hands on in their design (e.g. V1, VW2) and sometimes they also had a clear
requirement for theory building (e.g. SN2).

3. There is a close match between the assessment tasks – in particular, the knowledge and skills
the tasks are capable of determining – and the affordances of the Web 2.0 authoring forms
and tools as an adjunct to, or replacement for, other means of assessment.
In several cases, the task started with the use of one form and ended with the use of
another (e.g. SB1, SN2), because no single Web 2.0 authoring form had all the
affordances required by the assessment task. In a few cases additional collaboration
tools were required or optional alongside the Web 2.0 authoring form (e.g. V1,
VW1). Almost all (with the exception of V2) had a writing component, and a
number did not make use of the tool’s potential for multimedia forms of expression
(e.g. B1, V1). Only a few mentioned other affordances such as tagging (e.g. SB2) or
profiling (e.g. VW1, VW2) and none mentioned “friending”, rating, recommending
or syndicating. In almost every case, the task involved a sequence of subtasks over
a period of weeks, showing an effort to take advantage of the persistence of Web 2.0
authoring content through time, including across student cohorts (e.g. A1, SB1).
114 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2010, 26(1)

Few cases took advantage of the public accessibility feature of Web 2.0 authoring
forms for students to actively engage with those outside their cohort, with the
exception of SN1. Some tasks could just as easily have been accomplished by essay
submission or class presentation and did not require the use of a Web 2.0 authoring
form at all (e.g. SN2).

4. The grades awarded (and other information provided to students on their achievement)
make a direct link between the intended learning outcomes and students’ actual
performance on assessment tasks.
Sometimes marks were given for online participation or “presence” (e.g. V1, VW1),
sometimes for process (e.g. B2, VW1, W1) and sometimes for product (e.g. SN1,
W2), but it required a lot of inference to make a clear link between the grading
system and the learning outcomes stated in most cases. Although many of the cases
required group work, marks were most often allocated to the individual student;
although peer review and other forms of group assessment featured in most cases,
this did not translate into an allocation of marks for this activity, or a peer marking
process. In some cases the allocation of marks was clear but encouraged lower
orders of cognitive activity (e.g. SB1, V2). Over assessment, when students may be
required to write a large number of web page entries – with possible problems
ensuing for their learning and teachers’ marking – appeared for example in B1 and
SB3.

5. The grades awarded (and other information provided to students on their achievement)
make a direct link between the intended learning outcomes and students’ ability to use the
Web 2.0 authoring form and tool in relevant ways.
A few cases set out marking criteria unique to the Web 2.0 authoring form (e.g.
VW1, VW2 and W2), but in most cases the criteria for Web 2.0 authoring would be
equally applicable to more conventional modes of assessment. Written work was
the basis for marking even in cases when writing was not the main mode of
expression of a Web 2.0 form, as in podcasting and virtual worlds. Some written
pieces were marked as evidence of the student’s skill in using the tool (e.g. marks
for adding a tag to a bookmark or commenting on another student’s blog post).
There is some evidence of new approaches afforded by the Web 2.0 authoring
forms emerging in the assessment of how often, and occasionally how well,
students were using interactivity features or social interaction features: for example,
grading students’ wiki editing history, the user friendliness of their site design,
their tele-presence at a virtual world event or their spoken word performance in a
podcast. On the other hand, some cases did not award any marks for using a Web
2.0 form per se (e.g. A1, SN2). Apart from VW2, no marking system gave students
credit for innovation, i.e. for discovering and demonstrating affordances that they
thought would be suited to the task.

6. The assessment tasks are capable of evidencing the higher-order learning outcomes that
characterise higher education.
Many assessment tasks were designed to achieve types of higher-order learning –
defined as critical thinking, use of language, structuring and argument (Elander,
Harrington, Norton, Robinson & Reddy, 2006, p. 72) or compare/contrast, explain
causes, analyse, relate, apply, theorise, generalise, hypothesise and reflect (Biggs,
2003b, p. 3). For example, reflective writing appeared in A2, B1, B3 and W2; critical
evaluation of subject content and source materials was found in A1, B1, B3, SN1,
SN2, W1, W2 and W3; the quality of communication was identified in A1, W1, W2
Gray, Thompson, Sheard, Clerehan and Hamilton 115

and W3; argument was inferred in SN2 and specified in VW2. There was no clear
distinction of the expected order of learning according to academic level, i.e. some
undergraduate assignments seemed to be more demanding in these respects than
some postgraduate ones (e.g. VW1 and VW2 compared with SB2 or W2).

7. The assessment tasks are capable of evidencing the academically appropriate practices (in
particular those related to the conventions of acknowledging and attributing sources) that
characterise higher education.
Some tasks were class specific, progressive or linked to in class tasks in ways that
could help to circumvent inappropriate academic practices (e.g. A2, SB3 and V2).
There could be problems using academic conventions for acknowledging and
attributing sources in many cases, even where students were reminded of these as
in SB2 and SN1. With Web content so readily manipulable, asking students simply
to produce text (as in blogging and wiki writing) may inherently encourage
repurposing with or without attribution, and so may require more originality
checking than asking students to reinterpret it (as in social bookmarking and social
networking) or recreate it (as in audio and video podcasting and virtual worlds).
But even in A1 it might be difficult to tell how original the spoken word material
was, and in A2, how much opinion-gathering from others had contributed to the
discussion. The blogs described highlight the need for assignments to be explicit
about the extent to which an individual’s blog can draw on prior, wiki like
collaboration with others, and whether and how to acknowledge sources both
academic and non-scholarly. The cases that used a learning management system
(V2 and W3) would give teachers more capacity than other tools to authenticate
student identities, but a few cases further illustrate how the definition of
academically appropriate identity practices may need to be extended – e.g. offering
students a choice as to whether they would be seen online or not (V1) and advising
students about the significance of presenting professional and personal identities
online (VW2).

Conclusions
The findings from our investigation of 17 cases point to the need for further research
and development in an area where innovation in academic practice is being actively
encouraged at the same time as the challenges to innovation may be difficult for an
individual teacher to resolve. This study has key messages for teachers, academic
support staff and policymakers wishing to implement Web 2.0 authoring as part of the
assessment of student learning in higher education.

The introductory nature of the assignments in many of the cases in this study suggests
there are still many students who, contrary to popular assumptions about the Net
Generation, are not “savvy” with the tools and need practice and support even to
begin to use them. If students are required to concentrate on learning the basics of a
tool but are not then led further into using it in more complex ways to support
progressively deeper learning in a field of study, higher education is not well served.

It may be that some Web 2.0 authoring forms are essentially unappealing or intractable
for use in assessing student learning. Some Web 2.0 authoring forms might be better
thought of not as learning activities, but as learning aids (e.g. social bookmarking) or
learning environments (e.g. virtual worlds) which potentiate learning, but do not
necessarily cause it to happen. Typically, the design and conduct of traditional
116 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2010, 26(1)

assessment does not focus on the ways that students choose to use the aids or the
environments that the university provides to support it, such as reference management
software or wireless networks (unless to induct learners or to remediate poor
performance). Perhaps it is preferable, therefore, to conceive of, promote and evaluate
certain Web 2.0 authoring tools and forms as learning infrastructure rather than as
learning design.

Several cases in this study clearly intended that the Web 2.0 content created by
students would form a knowledge base or learning resource for future students, in
keeping with Collis and Moonen’s (2005, p. 7) “contributing student approach”. To
make this effective demands redesign of tasks and careful selection of tools, so that
students are not being asked to go online just to produce or reproduce content in
traditional academic assignment form. We were unable to find examples where
students were assessed meaningfully on how they were able to exploit and reflect on a
range of Web 2.0 affordances (for example the use of ratings, syndication or tag clouds)
for engaging with the continuum of past, present and future activity, with others both
known and unknown to them.

The openness of the social Web is an untapped feature in most of the cases we studied.
Measuring individual contributions to group activities in any kind of assignment can
be a difficult exercise which may appear to reflect unintended bias or personal value
judgements on the part of a closed group of assessors. Web 2.0 authoring affords a
more open environment in which to conduct such assessment although it appears to be
rarely used in this way, possibly because many academics would find this too risky as
a way to add rigour to assessment practices. Another possibility not seen in the cases
we studied is the facility for student Web 2.0 authoring to be done in the form of
contributions to larger, ongoing groups on the web, for example asking a student to
add to or create a Wikipedia entry. This may usefully move assessment closer to taking
advantage of third-party critique or external moderation, however it may also require
much more effort from academics, in coaching students to become discriminating
members of the unbounded group of informal learners whose online activities are
variously characterised as the global brain or the ignorance of crowds.

To become an accepted and respected part of learning and teaching in higher

education, the assessment of student Web 2.0 authoring must be able meet
expectations of good practice in assessment generally. The design and conduct of
assessment should make it clear how Web 2.0 authoring integrates with other elements
and forms of assessment; is linked to specified learning objectives; makes it possible to
produce evidence of desired learning outcomes; is supported by adequate instructions
and marking rubrics; encourages academic honesty and respects the rights of all
authors; provides explanatory and diagnostic feedback; enables peer review and
moderation of marking; and can be externally evaluated for purposes of curriculum
accreditation and recognition of prior learning. Information gleaned from the cases
analysed here indicates that much Web 2.0 assessment practice may still fall short of
achieving these expectations.

Moreover, the published literature about student Web 2.0 authoring indicates a
general lack of theoretical warrant for the innovative aspects of these practices. There
is need to initiate pedagogically driven research into learning and teaching in this area
and to apply the evidence it produces. We propose that this needs to be both bottom
up and top down: that is, that the theoretical foundations of assessment need to be
Gray, Thompson, Sheard, Clerehan and Hamilton 117

reconceptualised – though possibly still drawing on existing frameworks, such as we

have done in this paper – at the same time as intensive examination of current and
emergent practice is conducted. (Wyatt-Smith and Kimber, 2008, offer an example of
such an enterprise in secondary education.)

Proposals to reform university assessment in a web-influenced world are emerging, for

instance Hughes (2008) and Reeves (2006). While there are a number of frameworks
upon which one might draw, one promising foundation for assessment research and
development may be Wenger’s (2006) theory of education as the management of a
trajectory of personal identity formation, which occurs through modes of belonging in
social systems at many levels of scale. This will require considerable reflection and re-
formulation, but such thinking may ultimately provide academics with a stronger
rationale for designing and conducting assessment of student Web 2.0 authoring – as
and when appropriate to a field, level and context of learning. It would be foolish to
suggest that the assessment of student Web 2.0 authoring should totally replace other
assessment strategies; it is important to consider that it offers some valuable new
assessment options.

Advancing the assessment of student Web 2.0 authoring requires a degree of collegial
consensus and a level of academic peer review that are not yet in place. Attempts at
assessing student Web 2.0 authoring in higher education may founder if they merely
replicate existing practices in new forms. Suggestions for using specific Web 2.0
authoring forms innovatively for assessment purposes are scattered too widely across
refereed and ephemeral literature, and may be tied too closely to an individual
educator’s style or experience, to be helpful to an academic community or institution
trying to achieve system-wide improvements. A project currently in progress (refer to
http://www.groups.edna.edu.au/course/view.php?id=2146) aims to address this
situation by sharing academics’ approaches to educational effectiveness and principled
conduct in this area of assessment.

Appendix: Case study sources

[B1] Bouldin, A., Holmes, E. & Fortenberry, M. (2006). "Blogging" about course concepts:
Using technology for reflective journaling in a communication class. American Journal of
Pharmaceutical Education, 70(4), 1-8. [viewed 28 Nov 2008, verified 21 Feb 2010].
http://http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1636988/
[B2] Jones, M. & Magill, K. (2002/2003). Ed-blogs: The use of Weblogs in learning and
assessment. University of Wolverhampton. http://hdl.handle.net/2436/5397 [viewed 28
Nov 2008, verified 21 Feb 2010].
[B3] Du, H. & Wagner, C. (2005). Learning with weblogs: An empirical investigation. In
Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1(72).
[P1] Thompson, L. (2007). Podcasting: The ultimate learning experience and authentic
assessment. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and teaching. Proceedings ascilite Singapore
2007. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/thompson-poster.pdf
[P2] Evans, L. (2006). Using student podcasts in literature classes. [viewed 28 March 2008,
verified 21 Feb 2010]. http://www.academiccommons.org/ctfl/vignette/using-student-
podcasts-in-literature-classes
[SB1] Camplese, C. (2006). Social bookmarking.
http://camplesegroup.com/blog/?page_id=316 [viewed 28 Nov 2008, verified 21 Feb
2010 at http://www.colecamplese.com/teaching/ist-110-blogging-assignments/social-
bookmarking/].
118 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2010, 26(1)

[SB2] Oliver, K. (2007). Leveraging Web 2.0 in the redesign of a graduate-level technology
integration course. TechTrends, 51(5) 55-61.
[SB3] Waide, T. (2008). ED526: Internet literacy for educators. [viewed 1 Dec 2008, verified 21 Feb
2010]. https://internetliteracyforeducators.wikispaces.com/space/showimage/Syllabus.doc
[SN1] Gye, L. (n.d). Network Cultures Social Networking Assignment. [viewed 28 Nov 2008,
verified 21 Feb 2010]. http://www.swinmc.net/documents/socialnetworksassignment.doc
[SN2] Broznan, A. (n.d). The future of social networking Where do we go from here? [viewed 28
Nov 2008, verified 21 Feb 2010]. http://www.stanford.edu/~abronzan/cs73n/future.html
[V1a] Juhasz, A. (2008). Learning from YouTube. http://au.youtube.com/user/MediaPraxisme
[viewed 1 Dec 2008, verified 21 Feb 2010].
[V1b] Powers, E. (2007). YouTube studies. Inside Higher Ed, 6 September. [viewed 1 Dec 2008,
verified 21 Feb 2010]. http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/09/06/youtube
[V2] Morgan, M. (2008). FIT2016 Human computer interaction for multimedia: Unit guide
semester 2 2008. http://infotech.monash.edu.au/units/archive/2008/s2/fit2016.pdf
[viewed 1 Dec 2008, verified 21 Feb 2010].
[VW1] Collins, F. (2008). Digital selves: Preparing graduates for the virtual workplace. In
Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2008: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia
and Telecommunications, 5853-5858, Vienna, Austria.
[VW2] Traphagan, T. (2007). Evaluation of a pilot use of Second Life in an English course 2006-
2007. Division of Instructional Innovation and Assessment, University of Texas at Austin.
http://www.utexas.edu/academic/mec/publication/pdf/fulltext/SecondLife.pdf
[viewed 21 Nov 2008, verified 21 Feb 2010].
[W1] Bruns, A. & Humphreys. S. (2007). Building collaborative capacities in learners: The
M/Cyclopedia project revisited. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Wikis,
Montreal. [viewed 24 Feb 2008]. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00010518/
[W2] Elgort, I. (2007). Using wikis as a learning tool in higher education. In ICT: Providing
choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/elgort.pdf
[W3] Jones, P. (2007). When a wiki is the way: Exploring the use of a wiki in a constructively
aligned learning design. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings
ascilite Singapore 2007. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/jones-p.pdf

References
ACLS (American Council of Learned Societies) (2006). Our Cultural Commonwealth: The report of
the ACLS Commission on Cyberinfrastructure for the Humanities and Social Sciences. American
Council of Learned Societies. [viewed 1 Apr 2008, verified 21 Feb 2010].
http://www.acls.org/cyberinfrastructure/OurCulturalCommonwealth.pdf
Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A New wave of innovation for teaching and learning?
EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2), 32-44. [viewed 1 April 2008]. http://connect.educause.edu/
Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/Web20ANewWaveofInnovation/40615
Amitay, E., Yogev, S. & Yom-Tov, E. (2007). Serial sharers: Detecting split identities of web
authors. In Proceedings of ACM SIGIR Workshop on Plagiarism Analysis, Authorship
Identification, and Near-Duplicate Detection (PAN), Amsterdam, Netherlands. [viewed 1 Apr
2008, verified 21 Feb 2010]. http://einat.Webir.org/SIGIR_PAN_workshop_2007.pdf
Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC
Technology & Standards Watch, February. [viewed 1 Apr 2008, verified 21 Feb 2010].
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf
Gray, Thompson, Sheard, Clerehan and Hamilton 119

Barnes, C. & Tynan, B. (2007). The adventures of Miranda in the brave new world: Learning in a
Web 2.0 millennium. ALT-Journal, 15(3), 189-200. [verified 21 Feb 2010]
http://repository.alt.ac.uk/724/
Batson, T. (2007). The ePortfolio hijacked. Campus Technology, 12 December. [viewed 1 Apr 2008,
verified 21 Feb 2010]. http://www.campustechnology.com/articles/56617/
Berlanga, A., Sloep, P., Brouns, F., Van Rosmalen, P., Bitter-Rijpkema, M. & Koper, R. (2007).
Functionality for learning networks: Lessons learned from social web applications. Paper
presented at e-Portfolio Conference, October 17-19, in Maastricht, Netherlands.
http://hdl.handle.net/1820/1011 [viewed 1 Apr 2008, verified 21 Feb 2010].
Biggs, J. (2003a). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. 2nd Edition.
Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education: Open University Press.
Biggs, J. (2003b). Aligning teaching and assessment to course objectives. Paper presented at
ICHEd Conference: Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: New Trends and
Innovations, April 13-17, in University of Aveiro, Portugal. [viewed 1 Apr 2008, verified 21
Feb 2010]. http://event.ua.pt/iched/main/invcom/p182.pdf
Boulos, M., Maramba, I. & Wheeler, S. (2006). Wikis, blogs and podcasts: A new generation of
web-based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and education. BMC Medical
Education, 6(41). http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-6920-6-41.pdf [viewed
1 Apr 2008, verified 21 Feb 2010].
Brown, J. & Adler, R. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0.
EDUCAUSE Review, 43(1), 16-32. http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0811.pdf
Bughin, J. (2008). The rise of enterprise 2.0. Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 9(3), 251-
259.
Burgess, J., Foth, M. & Klaebe, H. (2006). Everyday creativity as civic engagement: A cultural
citizenship view of new media. In Proceedings Communications Policy & Research Forum,
Sydney, Australia. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00005056/01/5056_1.pdf
Carey, G. (n.d). Gleeson Year 9 Assignments. https://gleeson9itc.pbwiki.com/Assignments
[viewed 20 Nov 2008, verified 21 Feb 2010 at http://gleeson9itc.pbworks.com/Assignments]
Chalmers, D. (2007). A review of Australian and international quality systems and indicators of
learning and teaching. Chippendale, NSW: Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in
Higher Education. [verified 21 Feb 2010] http://www.altc.edu.au/resource-review-
indicators-teaching-learning-2007
Clark, D., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A. & Erkens. G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing
dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3),
343-74.
Collis, B. & Moonen, J. (2005). An on-going journey: Technology as a learning workbench.
University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
http://www.bettycollisjefmoonen.nl/rb.htm
Crisp, G. (2007). The e-Assessment Handbook. London: Continuum.
Crook, C., Fisher, T., Graber, R., Harrison, C., Lewin, C., Logan, C., Luckin, R., Oliver, M. &
Sharples, M. (2008). Web 2.0 technologies for learning: The current landscape – opportunities,
challenges and tensions. BECTA Research Report. [viewed 1 Feb 2010].
http://partners.becta.org.uk/upload-
dir/downloads/page_documents/research/Web2_technologies_learning.pdf
Dalsgaard, C. (2006). Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systems.
European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 2.
http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Christian_Dalsgaard.htm
120 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2010, 26(1)

Darbyshire, P. & Burgess, S. (2006). Strategies for dealing with plagiarism and the web in higher
education. Journal of Business Systems, Governance and Ethics, 1(4), 27-39.
http://www.jbsge.vu.edu.au/issues/vol01no4/Darbyshire-Burgess.pdf

Downes, S. (2007). Open source assessment. Message posted to Half an Hour (blog).
http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2007/06/open-source-assessment.html [viewed 12 Dec
2008, verified 20 Feb 2010].
Dron, J. (2006). The pleasures and perils of social software. In Proceedings of the Higher Education
Academy Information and Computer Sciences 7th Annual Conference, 127-131. Dublin, Ireland.
[viewed 1 Apr 2008, verified 21 Feb 2010]. http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/Events/
HEADublin2006_V2/papers/Jon%20Dron%2024.pdf
Ehlers, U. (2009). Web 2.0 – e-learning 2.0 – quality 2.0? Quality for new learning cultures.
Quality Assurance in Education, 17(3), 296-314.
Elander, J., Harrington, K., Norton, L., Robinson, H. & Reddy, P. (2006). Complex skills and
academic writing: A review of evidence about the types of learning required to meet core
assessment criteria. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(1), 71-90.
Elliott, B. (2007). E-assessment: What is Web 2.0? Glasgow: Scottish Qualifications Authority.
http://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/22941.html [viewed 1 Apr 2008, verified 21 Feb 2010].
Franklin, T. & van Harmelen, M. (2007). Web 2.0 for content for learning and teaching in higher
education. JISC Report. [viewed 1 Apr 2008, verified 21 Feb 2010].
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/digitalrepositories/Web2-content-
learning-and-teaching.pdf
Godwin, P. (2007). The Web 2.0 challenge to information literacy. Paper presented at Inforum
2007: 13th Conference on Professional Information Resources, May 22-24, Prague. [viewed 1
Apr 2008, verified 21 Feb 2010]. http://www.inforum.cz/pdf/2007/godwin-peter.pdf
Gray, K., Thompson, C., Clerehan, R., Sheard, J. & Hamilton, M. (2008). Web 2.0 authorship:
Issues of referencing and citation for academic integrity. The Internet and Higher Education,
11(2), 112-118.
Hemmi, A., Bayne, S. & Land, R. (2009). The appropriation and repurposing of social
technologies in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1), 19-30.
Horizon Report (2008). Stanford, California, USA: New Media Consortium / EDUCAUSE
Learning Initiative. http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2008-Horizon-Report.pdf
Hughes, J. (2008). Open accreditation – a model. Pontydysgu – bridge to learning blog. [viewed
1 Apr 2008, verified 21 Feb 2010]. http://www.pontydysgu.org/2008/10/open-
accreditation-a-model/
Isaacs, G. (2002). Assessing Group Tasks. Brisbane: University of Queensland Teaching &
Educational Development Institute. [viewed Apr 2008, verified 21 Feb 2010].
http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/downloads/T&L_Assess_group_tasks.pdf
James, R., McInnis, C. & Devlin, M. (2002). Assessing Learning in Australian Universities: Ideas,
Strategies and Resources for Quality in Assessment: Five Practical Guides. The University of
Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education / Australian Universities Teaching
Committee. http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/assessinglearning/03/ and
http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/assessinglearning/06/ [viewed 1 Apr 2008, verified 21
Feb 2010].
JISC (2007). Effective practice with e-assessment: An overview of technologies, policies and practice in
further and higher education. UK: HEFCE. [viewed 1 Apr 2008, verified 21 Feb 2010].
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/themes/elearning/effpraceassess.pdf
Gray, Thompson, Sheard, Clerehan and Hamilton 121

Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Gray, K., Judd, T., Waycott, J., Bennett, S., Maton, K., Krause, K. L.,
Bishop, A., Chang, R. & Churchward, A. (2007). The Net Generation are not big users of Web
2.0 technologies: preliminary findings. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning.
Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/kennedy.pdf
Kirkwood, A. & Price, L. (2008). Assessment and student learning: a fundamental relationship
and the role of information and communication technologies. Open Learning: The Journal of
Open and Distance Learning, 23(1), 5-16.
Lamb, K. & McLaughlin, C. (2008). e-Assessment 07/08: Training and support initiatives.
Edinburgh: JISC Regional Support Centres for Scotland. http://www.rsc-sw-
scotland.ac.uk/eAssessment/docfiles/e-Assessment_Initiatives_2007-08.pdf

Martin, A. (2005). The landscape of digital literacy. DigEuLit Project.

http://www.digeulit.ec/docs/public.asp [viewed 1 Apr 2008, not found 21 Feb 2010, see
http://www.elearningeuropa.info/directory/index.php?page=doc&doc_id=6007&doclng=6]

Nillson, L., Eklof, A. & Ottosson, T. (2005). What's so original? The discourse on education and
dishonesty in the wake of a technological revolution. Paper presented at The 11th Biennial
Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI),
Nicosia, Cyprus. [viewed 1 Apr 2008, verified 21 Feb 2010]
http://www.distans.hkr.se/ILLWebb/Earli_paper2005_whats_so_original_final.pdf
Race, P. (2001). A briefing on self, peer and group assessment. Assessment Series No. 9. UK:
LTSN Generic Centre. http://internt.iha.dk/paedagogik/seminarer/Chris%20Rust/ASS009
PhilRace.pdf [viewed 1 Apr 2008, verified 21 Feb 2010 at
http://www.palatine.ac.uk/files/970.pdf]
REAP (ReEngineering Assessment Practices in Scottish Higher Education Project) (2007).
Assessment principles: Some possible candidates. [viewed 1 Apr 2008, verified 21 Feb 2010].
http://www.reap.ac.uk/resourcesPrinciples.html
Reeves, T. (2006). How do you know they are learning? The importance of alignment in higher
education. International Journal of Learning Technology, 2(4), 294-309. [verified 21 Feb 2010]
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI08105A.pdf
Renner, W. (2006). E-learning 2.0: New frontier for student empowerment. Paper presented at
Edu-Com 2006, 22-24 November, Nong Khai, Thailand. [viewed 1 Apr 2008, verified 21 Feb
2010]. http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/elearning/elearning2.pdf
Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms. Thousand
Oaks, California, USA: Corwin Press.
Roberts, E. (2007). Transforming digital content into learning. Presentation at The Sixth Annual
ECAR/HP Summer Symposium for Higher Education IT Executives, 11-13 June, Boulder,
Colorado. http://connect.educause.edu/Library/ECAR/TransformingDigitalConten/45012
[viewed 1 Apr 2008, verified 21 Feb 2010]

Sankey, M. & Huijser, H. (2009). A 'likely benefit' from aligning Web 2.0 technologies with an
institution’s learning and teaching agenda. In: 2009 World Conference on E-Learning in
Corporate, Government, Healthcare & Higher Education (E-LEARN 2009), 26-30 Oct 2009,
Vancouver, Canada. http://eprints.usq.edu.au/6055/
Selwyn, N. (2007). Web 2.0 applications as alternative environments for informal learning - a
critical review. Paper presented at the OECD-KERIS Expert Meeting - Session 6 - Alternative
learning environments in practice: Using ICT to change impact and outcomes. [viewed 1 Apr
2008, verified 21 Feb 2010]. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/3/39458556.pdf
122 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2010, 26(1)

Sener, J. (2007). In search of student-generated content in online education. e-mentor, 4(21).

[viewed 1 Apr 2008, verified 21 Feb 2010]. http://e-mentor.edu.pl/_xml/wydania/21/467.pdf

Varvel, V. (2005). Honesty in online education. Pointers and Clickers, 6(1), 1-20. [verified 21 Feb
2010] http://www.ion.uillinois.edu/resources/pointersclickers/2005_01/VarvelCheatPoint2005.pdf

Wenger, E. (2006). Learning for a small planet: A research agenda. [viewed 1 Dec 2008, verified
21 Feb 2010]. http://ewenger.com/research/LSPfoundingdoc.doc

Wyatt-Smith, C. & Kimber, K. (2008). Valuing and evaluating student-generated online

multimodal texts: Rethinking what counts. English in Education, 39(2), 22-43.

Kathleen Gray, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences,

The University of Melbourne. Email: kgray@unimelb.edu.au
Celia Thompson, School of Languages and Linguistics,
The University of Melbourne.
Judithe Sheard, Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University.

Rosemary Clerehan, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences,

Monash University.
Margaret Hamilton, School of Computer Science and Information Technology,
RMIT University.